Melkitization

[Peter_J]

Hi all.

The term “Melkitization” has been used occasionally on this forum, although of course not nearly as much as “Latinization”. I thought that perhaps having a thread specifically on the topic might produce some worthwhile discussion.

Thoughts anyone?

P.S. By “Melkitization” I mean the importing of elements/characteristics of the Melkite Catholic Church into other churches. Please note that criticism of such does not amount to criticism of the Melkite Church as such – just as criticism of Latinization doesn’t amount to criticism of the Latin Church.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Come back when Iconostases have been set up in Latin churches

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Hi all.

The term “Melkitization” has been used occasionally on this forum, although of course not nearly as much as “Latinization”. I thought that perhaps having a thread specifically on the topic might produce some worthwhile discussion.

Thoughts anyone?

P.S. By “Melkitization” I mean the importing of elements/characteristics of the Melkite Catholic Church into other churches. Please note that criticism of such does not amount to criticism of the Melkite Church as such – just as criticism of Latinization doesn’t amount to criticism of the Latin Church.

I’ve never heard the word/concept “Melkitization,” nor have I seen it around here before. Could you please provide some specific examples. I am familiar with “Byzantinization” which means the importing of elements/characteristics of Byzantine theology, spirituality, liturgy, etc. into other Churches (usually Oriental Churches). And obviously I’m also familiar with “Latinization.” But "Melkitization is a new one in my book.

 

[Trebor135]

Hi all.

The term “Melkitization” has been used occasionally on this forum, although of course not nearly as much as “Latinization”. I thought that perhaps having a thread specifically on the topic might produce some worthwhile discussion.

Thoughts anyone?

P.S. By “Melkitization” I mean the importing of elements/characteristics of the Melkite Catholic Church into other churches. Please note that criticism of such does not amount to criticism of the Melkite Church as such – just as criticism of Latinization doesn’t amount to criticism of the Latin Church.

I’ve never heard of such a thing. Where have you seen or read melkitization having occured? And what elements of Melkite practice were imported?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I’ve never heard of such a thing. Where have you seen or read melkitization having occured? And what elements of Melkite practice were imported?

The occasional icon in a Latin church I think.

 

[Peter_J]

I’ve only seen actually the word “Melkitization” (as far as I can recall) used in reference to Melkite elements being imported into the Maronite Church or other Oriental Catholic Churches; but I wouldn’t write that restriction into the definition of the word.

 

[dzheremi]

Hi all.

The term “Melkitization” has been used occasionally on this forum, although of course not nearly as much as “Latinization”. I thought that perhaps having a thread specifically on the topic might produce some worthwhile discussion.

Thoughts anyone?

P.S. By “Melkitization” I mean the importing of elements/characteristics of the Melkite Catholic Church into other churches. Please note that criticism of such does not amount to criticism of the Melkite Church as such – just as criticism of Latinization doesn’t amount to criticism of the Latin Church.

“Occasionally” is right. It has been used a grand total of ONE time, according to the simple “search posts” function (I didn’t do an advanced search, because I don’t know what more it would uncover when searching for a particular term not connected to a given poster/thread). Malphono used it once on October 14, 2010 when discussing the Byzantinazation of the Oriental Catholic Churches, and then Dcontin quoted that same post in his reply.

I don’t know what kind of rousing discussion we can have based on something that has come up all of one time in the past (I imagine a more general term like “Byzantinzation” would generate both more search results, and a more lively discussion), but I found the following part of Malphono’s post to be rather interesting:

The good thing is that this is not a trend as such, but seems to be limited to certain places and certain clergy, which means that, while it’s incorrect, (not to mention highly annoying), it’s no where near as dangerous as the Novus Ordo-inspired neo latinizations mentioned earlier.

If I’m reading him correctly, it seems to be less a systemic problem than an individual clergy problem, so I’d agree that there’s no real useful parallel to Latinization here. We don’t have it in the Coptic Orthodox Church (and I haven’t noticed it among the Middle Eastern Syrians, either; some individual Syrian Orthodox Indian hymns I’ve found on Youtube show definite Byzantine influence in their arrangement, but I really doubt that this is something endemic to that Church, particularly since that specific hymn is a Malayalam reworking of the Syriac version that does not have that arrangement at all), so I really can’t comment on it beyond that. I would be quite unhappy to find Byzantine ways talking over any of the Oriental churches, though. They don’t really help anything.

 

[malphono]

“Occasionally” is right. It has been used a grand total of ONE time, according to the simple “search posts” function (I didn’t do an advanced search, because I don’t know what more it would uncover when searching for a particular term not connected to a given poster/thread). Malphono used it once on October 14, 2010 when discussing the Byzantinazation of the Oriental Catholic Churches, and then Dcontin quoted that same post in his reply.

I don’t know what kind of rousing discussion we can have based on something that has come up all of one time in the past (I imagine a more general term like “Byzantinzation” would generate both more search results, and a more lively discussion), but I found the following part of Malphono’s post to be rather interesting:

If I’m reading him correctly, it seems to be less a systemic problem than an individual clergy problem, so I’d agree that there’s no real useful parallel to Latinization here. We don’t have it in the Coptic Orthodox Church (and I haven’t noticed it among the Middle Eastern Syrians, either; some individual Syrian Orthodox Indian hymns I’ve found on Youtube show definite Byzantine influence in their arrangement, but I really doubt that this is something endemic to that Church, particularly since that specific hymn is a Malayalam reworking of the Syriac version that does not have that arrangement at all), so I really can’t comment on it beyond that. I would be quite unhappy to find Byzantine ways talking over any of the Oriental churches, though. They don’t really help anything.

Yes, you’ve got it right. And of course I used the term “Melkitization” with a qualifier saying that it was my terminology. In any case, it’s not, and never has been, a systemic problem among the Maronites, but rather something that occurs more-or-less ad-hoc among certain clergy but, as I said at the time, there are those anti-latinization Maronites who insist that the Melkites are the “guardians of tradition” (read: they were free of wholesale latinizations). And I’ll add that when I say “anti-latinization” I mean anti the “old” latinizations, since those people are invariably madly in love with the versus populum table and other such Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization nonsense. Let me also repeat something I’ve alluded to in the past: I’ve seen far too many Melkite DLs celebrated on a versus populum table absent even a portable iconostatis, so I have to conclude the Novus Ordo-inspired variety of neo-latinizations has taken its toll on the Melkites as well.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I’ve never heard the word/concept “Melkitization,” nor have I seen it around here before.

FWIW, me neither …

 

[MarkosC]

there are those anti-latinization Maronites who insist that the Melkites are the “guardians of tradition”

Honestly, the idea is nonsensical. Even if a given Melkite Parish celebrated liturgy “perfectly” according to all the (Greek) books, liturgical scholarship (e.g. Father Robert Taft) have shown comprehensively that this would have nothing to do with the Maronite tradition.

Any “recovery” of pre-Latin Maronite tradition would have to go waaaay back to medieval and earlier sources, and would have to be done with a critical pastoral sense - especially since we’re not an antiquarian society, but a a community that worships God in common. Any change would have to be done because it makes sense, because it fits the Maronite heart better than what’s in place, and would have to be weighed against other considerations.

(e.g. I’m told with good evidence that Communion in both kinds in the hand and from a common cup is the inarguably patristic communion practice. I receive it in such a way whenever I attend a Latin-rite Mass under the 1970 Missal. That doesn’t mean that it was prudent to reintroduce it, with only facile explanation and with no good underlying reason I’ve heard, to a then desacralizing Latin church)

 

[Vico]

I’ve only seen actually the word “Melkitization” (as far as I can recall) used in reference to Melkite elements being imported into the Maronite Church or other Oriental Catholic Churches; but I wouldn’t write that restriction into the definition of the word.

That is interesting considering what happened in Antioch from 451-452. The church had various divisions at that time from the Patriarchate of Antioch: Maronites, Melkites, and Syriacs. Those who came to be called Melkites were actually of three Patriarchates Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and changed ritual from West Syrian to Byzantine over time.

 

[Peter_J]

Pardon my slowness in responding. I haven’t been posting much today.

Nice to see you here, malphono. I was rather hoping you’d chime in on this thread, especially since I’ve enjoyed your past posts regarding “Melkitization”. (It appears that you’re the only one on this forum who has used the term before, contrary to my original thinking that one or two other posters had as well. Possibly I was thinking of a poster at The Byzantine Forum.)

Trebor135;9514705:

I’ve never heard of such a thing. Where have you seen or read melkitization having occured? And what elements of Melkite practice were imported?

The occasional icon in a Latin church I think.

I believe there is such a thing as Melkitization (or Byzantinization – or we might just say Easternization) of the Latin Church, but it generally flies under the radar. I think this is for 2 reasons: first, the effects are small relative to the size of the Latin Church; and secondly, it’s unlikely they would be noticed since there have been so many other changes since Vatican II.

So practically speaking, if someone says “Melkitization” I would generally guess that they aren’t speaking of the Latin Church.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I believe there is such a thing as Melkitization (or Byzantinization – or we might just say Easternization) of the Latin Church, but it generally flies under the radar. I think this is for 2 reasons: first, the effects are small relative to the size of the Latin Church; and secondly, it’s unlikely they would be noticed since there have been so many other changes since Vatican II.

So practically speaking, if someone says “Melkitization” I would generally guess that they aren’t speaking of the Latin Church.

But is it bad? The Latin Church has a history of adopting practises from others, like the unleavened bread from the Armenians.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

But is it bad? The Latin Church has a history of adopting practises from others, like the unleavened bread from the Armenians.

Really…we adopted unleavened hosts from the Armenians?
Interesting…

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Really…we adopted unleavened hosts from the Armenians?
Interesting…

'Tis true. The Byzantines actually had not a small amount of controversy with the Armenians over the issue. When the Romans also adopted unleavened bread it was like reopening a rather raw wound.

Interestingly, in the olden days it was a characteristic of both the Byzantine and the Roman traditions to borrow elements of other traditions into their liturgical and theological life. The main difference between the “borrowings” of the past and what are characterized as “Latinizations” or “Byzantinizations/Melkitizations” today is that in the past such “borrowings” were absorbed into the traditions of the particular Churches, whereas more recently such “borrowings” have, in many places, replaced the traditions of the particular Churches.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

'Tis true. The Byzantines actually had not a small amount of controversy with the Armenians over the issue. When the Romans also adopted unleavened bread it was like reopening a rather raw wound.

Interestingly, in the olden days it was a characteristic of both the Byzantine and the Roman traditions to borrow elements of other traditions into their liturgical and theological life. The main difference between the “borrowings” of the past and what are characterized as “Latinizations” or “Byzantinizations/Melkitizations” today is that in the past such “borrowings” were absorbed into the traditions of the particular Churches, whereas more recently such “borrowings” have, in many places, replaced the traditions of the particular Churches.

What made the Romans decide to do that?
Same with the Maronites. From whom and why did they “borrow” (assuming it was borrowed) this tradition?
Previous to the crusades, how similar were the Armenians to the Romans?

Interestingly, in the olden days…

Ah, the good old days…
Not the forties, or the twenties…
More like 500 AD

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

What made the Romans decide to do that?
Same with the Maronites. From whom and why did they “borrow” (assuming it was borrowed) this tradition?
Previous to the crusades, how similar were the Armenians to the Romans?

Ah, the good old days…
Not the forties, or the twenties…
More like 500 AD

I’m honestly not as familiar with any of the Oriental traditions (including the Armenians) as I would like to be. Nor am I as familiar with the adoption of unleavened bread into the Roman Mass. It would be a good study though. I’m sure there are some folks on here who know the history… Anyone?.. Anyone?.. Bueller?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Honestly, the idea is nonsensical. Even if a given Melkite Parish celebrated liturgy “perfectly” according to all the (Greek) books, liturgical scholarship (e.g. Father Robert Taft) have shown comprehensively that this would have nothing to do with the Maronite tradition.

Any “recovery” of pre-Latin Maronite tradition would have to go waaaay back to medieval and earlier sources, and would have to be done with a critical pastoral sense - especially since we’re not an antiquarian society, but a a community that worships God in common. Any change would have to be done because it makes sense, because it fits the Maronite heart better than what’s in place, and would have to be weighed against other considerations.

(e.g. I’m told with good evidence that Communion in both kinds in the hand and from a common cup is the inarguably patristic communion practice. I receive it in such a way whenever I attend a Latin-rite Mass under the 1970 Missal. That doesn’t mean that it was prudent to reintroduce it, with only facile explanation and with no good underlying reason I’ve heard, to a then desacralizing Latin church)

An excellent post.

 

[malphono]

Nice to see you here, malphono. I was rather hoping you’d chime in on this thread, especially since I’ve enjoyed your past posts regarding “Melkitization”. (It appears that you’re the only one on this forum who has used the term before, contrary to my original thinking that one or two other posters had as well. Possibly I was thinking of a poster at The Byzantine Forum.)

Thanks but in retrospect I think I should have kept mum and stayed out of this thread.

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks but in retrospect I think I should have kept mum and stayed out of this thread.

Well, alright, I’m not here to tell you what to do of course; but I was glad to have your (name removed by moderator)ut, particularly regarding relations among different churches – including the ones that are neither Latin nor Byzantine.